Which is smart. I mean if there is a BC who do you think gets the nod? It could be any number of folks.
Rubio if he's still viable. Or maybe John Kasich. Right now it seems quite plausible that Rubio loses his home state of Florida and is done but Kasich wins his home state of Florida.
Maybe the Establishment goes with Mitt Romney who was clearly auditioning for the job this week. Election betting odds now have Romney with a 1.4 percent chance for the nomination. He's actually being beaten by his VP choice from 2012-Ryan's at 1.7 percent.
https://electionbettingodds.com/week.html
Or maybe someone else not named will get the look. Though there aren't many credible GOP leaders these days who come to mind.
But we know it won't be Ted Cruz. He's smart enough to get that.
"Ted Cruz poured cold water on the calls to stop GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trumpduring a brokered convention, warning that there could be hell to pay with the grass roots if they believe their will is being disregarded."
"Any time you hear someone talking about a brokered convention, it is the Washington establishment in a fevered frenzy, they are really frustrated because all their chosen candidates, their golden children, the voters keep rejecting," Cruz said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
"So they seize on this plan of a brokered convention, and the D.C. power brokers will drop someone in who is exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment. If that would happen, we would have a manifest revolt on our hands all across this country."
In Cruz's mind, there's one way to beat Donald Trump: "with the voters."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271875-cruz-brokered-convention-would-lead-to-voter-revolt
He's right about that. Any success the Establishment had in robbing Trump of the nomination through a BC would lead to a large scale revolt.
And after yesterday, Cruz might be the best chance to beat Trump-though I think the pundits are wrong to get too pessmistic about Trump based on mostly caucus states. But the big story of the night was not that Trump did poorly but that Cruz did very well.
http://diaryofarepublicanhaterblogspotcom.sharedby.co/share/6OElG1
As for Marco Rubio, Trump is right. Every time someone has come after him, they've collapsed in the polls and ended up out of the race.
1. Rick Perry
2. Scott Walker
3. Lindsay Graham
4. Jeb
5. Rubio
The press seems convinced that Trump had a bad debate. But then they always think his debates were bad. Like in South Carolina this is their party line. But the opponent he got into it with in SC was Jeb.
Nate Silver claims that Trump's numbers went down after that. If so, only mildly and not enough to matter. I mean his final victory in the state was about 11 points which is what he led by all along.
He also won every single county in the state.
Meanwhile Jeb saw his numbers in the toilet after the debate and did so poorly in the primary he had to quit after.
What we can say then is that if the SC debate hurt Trump it was pretty mild and it hurt Jeb much more than it did him. But if you have a tussle with an opponent and you maybe lose a point or two off of what was still a decisive win, and your opponent has to leave the race, I think you won the exchange.
And ditto with Rubio. Some think he scored points with his attacks on Trump. I see no evidence of that whatsoever.
He started this Trump attacks after Nevada and his polls have sagged since. He had an awful night on Super Tuesday-after it, he no longer had any path to winning the nomination outright.
He, unlike, Cruz, needs a BC, it's his only hope. Yet he trails big in Florida.
Again, correlation doesn't always prove causation. But what we can say is that every GOPer who has attacked Trump has subsequently gone down the tubes in this race.
Rubio if he's still viable. Or maybe John Kasich. Right now it seems quite plausible that Rubio loses his home state of Florida and is done but Kasich wins his home state of Florida.
Maybe the Establishment goes with Mitt Romney who was clearly auditioning for the job this week. Election betting odds now have Romney with a 1.4 percent chance for the nomination. He's actually being beaten by his VP choice from 2012-Ryan's at 1.7 percent.
https://electionbettingodds.com/week.html
Or maybe someone else not named will get the look. Though there aren't many credible GOP leaders these days who come to mind.
But we know it won't be Ted Cruz. He's smart enough to get that.
"Ted Cruz poured cold water on the calls to stop GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trumpduring a brokered convention, warning that there could be hell to pay with the grass roots if they believe their will is being disregarded."
"Any time you hear someone talking about a brokered convention, it is the Washington establishment in a fevered frenzy, they are really frustrated because all their chosen candidates, their golden children, the voters keep rejecting," Cruz said Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
"So they seize on this plan of a brokered convention, and the D.C. power brokers will drop someone in who is exactly to the liking of the Washington establishment. If that would happen, we would have a manifest revolt on our hands all across this country."
In Cruz's mind, there's one way to beat Donald Trump: "with the voters."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271875-cruz-brokered-convention-would-lead-to-voter-revolt
He's right about that. Any success the Establishment had in robbing Trump of the nomination through a BC would lead to a large scale revolt.
And after yesterday, Cruz might be the best chance to beat Trump-though I think the pundits are wrong to get too pessmistic about Trump based on mostly caucus states. But the big story of the night was not that Trump did poorly but that Cruz did very well.
http://diaryofarepublicanhaterblogspotcom.sharedby.co/share/6OElG1
As for Marco Rubio, Trump is right. Every time someone has come after him, they've collapsed in the polls and ended up out of the race.
1. Rick Perry
2. Scott Walker
3. Lindsay Graham
4. Jeb
5. Rubio
The press seems convinced that Trump had a bad debate. But then they always think his debates were bad. Like in South Carolina this is their party line. But the opponent he got into it with in SC was Jeb.
Nate Silver claims that Trump's numbers went down after that. If so, only mildly and not enough to matter. I mean his final victory in the state was about 11 points which is what he led by all along.
He also won every single county in the state.
Meanwhile Jeb saw his numbers in the toilet after the debate and did so poorly in the primary he had to quit after.
What we can say then is that if the SC debate hurt Trump it was pretty mild and it hurt Jeb much more than it did him. But if you have a tussle with an opponent and you maybe lose a point or two off of what was still a decisive win, and your opponent has to leave the race, I think you won the exchange.
And ditto with Rubio. Some think he scored points with his attacks on Trump. I see no evidence of that whatsoever.
He started this Trump attacks after Nevada and his polls have sagged since. He had an awful night on Super Tuesday-after it, he no longer had any path to winning the nomination outright.
He, unlike, Cruz, needs a BC, it's his only hope. Yet he trails big in Florida.
Again, correlation doesn't always prove causation. But what we can say is that every GOPer who has attacked Trump has subsequently gone down the tubes in this race.
No comments:
Post a Comment